Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning Michael Clauss and Jeremy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 1 / 34

Adjective types There is a large and diverse set of adjectives in English which can take an infinitival clause as a complement. (Bresnan 1971, Lasnik and Fiengo 1974, Hartman 2012) John is tough to see Flowers are pretty to look at I am devastated to hear that John is eager to see Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 2 / 34

Adjective types One pre-theoretic division among these types is whether the matrix subject is interpreted as embedded subject or object. John is tough to see œ A sentence about seeing John John is eager to see œ A sentence about John seeing Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 3 / 34

Adjective types We will broadly describe these as Subject- and Object-oriented adjectives Also “Control" and “Tough" type, though this simplifies a bit. John is tough to see œ John 1 is tough [PRO arb to see ( e 1 )] John is eager to see œ John 1 is eager [PRO 1 to see] Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 4 / 34

Adjective types An open question: Given this frame, how does one assign a novel adjective to either of these classes? John is daxy to see ? John 1 is daxy [PRO arb to see ( e 1 )] ? John 1 is daxy [PRO 1 to see] Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 5 / 34

Acquisition of Adjective types A sizable body of previous acquisition work has shown that children show poor performance in correctly parsing even familiar Tough-type adjectives C. Chomsky 1969, Solan 1978, Anderson 2005 John is tough to see œ Adult: John 1 is tough [PRO arb to see ( e 1 )] œ Child: John 1 is tough [PRO 1 to see] Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 6 / 34

Acquisition of Adjective types However, recent work by Becker et al (2012) and Becker (2015) has claimed that certain semantic cues used during nonce word training – namely, animacy – can inform children of the syntactic type of novel adjectives. Apples are daxy to draw œ Apples 1 are daxy [PRO arb to draw ( e 1 )] The policeman is daxy to draw œ The policeman 1 is daxy [PRO 1 to draw] Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 7 / 34

Acquisition of Adjective types What other cues could learners use in disambiguating? And, would they be more or less reliable cues? Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 8 / 34

Syntactic cues An observation: Different adjective types go with different syntactic frames. a John is eager/easy to see œ Ambiguous b It’s easy /*eager to see John œ Expletive c John is *easy/ eager to see Bill œ Filled Object gap d John is easy /*eager to look at œ Obligatorily transitive verb Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 9 / 34

Syntactic cues This gives clues about the nature of novel adjectives a John is daxy to see œ Ambiguous b It’s daxy to see John œ John 1 is daxy [PRO arb to see ( e 1 )] c John is daxy to see Bill œ John 1 is daxy [PRO 1 to see] d John is daxy to look at œ John 1 is daxy [PRO arb to see ( e 1 )] Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 10 / 34

Syntactic cues The question Is hearing a novel adjective in a disambiguating frame sufficient information to determine the syntactic type of that adjective? Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 11 / 34

The present study To answer this question, we designed a nonce learning experiment manipulating syntactic frames during training. Participants heard the novel adjective daxy either in only the ambiguous frame or also in one of the disambiguating frames. They were then asked for a series of pictures, œ Here is an (x) and a (y); which one is daxy to (verb)? Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 12 / 34

The present study In this picture... a John is daxy to see... b It’s daxy to see John... c John is daxy to see Tom... d John is daxy to look at... ... John is daxy to see. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 13 / 34

The present study Training items The pictures are semantically vague œ This picture plausibly could be described with either a Tough or Control type adjective. So the only potential cues are from the form of the sentences. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 14 / 34

The present study Test items Here’s a picture of a man and a dog. Can you tell me which one is daxy to clean? If the participant chooses the man, they have given a Subject response; If they choose the dog, they have given an Object response. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 15 / 34

The present study Each participant saw one of the four training conditions, followed by four test items. Training consisted of three pictures, presented in a consistent order. The four test items were invariant across participants, presented in a random order. The participants were 77 adult native English speakers (UMass undergrads) and 58 children ages 4, 5, and 6. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 16 / 34

Idealized results The ideal result would be consistently using the disambiguating training conditions to give either 100% or 0% subject-oriented responses to the test items. Training Ambiguous Expletive Filled gap Transitive S-oriented responses 50% 0% 100% 0% Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 17 / 34

Adult results The results we find for adults are strikingly close to the idealized results. Main effect of condition (F = 19.25, p <.001) Goes in expected directions Ambiguous condition at chance. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 18 / 34

The present experiment So we have a strong indication that adults can indeed classify adjectives based on purely syntactic information. Now what about children? Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 19 / 34

Child results Several possible results from child study: Children are adultlike œ Effect of condition, response rates comparable to adults Children have Strong Subject bias œ No effect of condition, close to 100% Subject responses. Children have Weak Subject bias œ Children are adultlike except for ambiguous condition, where they skew more toward Subject responses Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 20 / 34

Child results Looking at the child data as a whole we see a strong subject bias. No effect of condition (F = 1.03, p = .39) All skew toward subject No condition ideal. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 21 / 34

Child results Breaking the data down by age shows a slightly more complicated picture No effect of condition Marginal effect of age (p < .1), no interaction. Fours show divergent behavior on Filled Gap condition Sixes starting to trend adultlike on unambiguous conditions. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 22 / 34

Child results We can make some preliminary generalizations about children: Under these conditions, the bias toward Subject interpretations seems real. By age six children still do not reliably use syntactic cues in disambiguating. But, six year olds trend in the right direction. œ Lower rates of Subject-Oriented responses when training should prevent them. œ Start to resemble Weak Subject Bias predictions. Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 23 / 34

Adults revisited Two remaining questions are: When do children gain the ability to give an adultlike performance? Can adults be prompted into ideal performance? Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 24 / 34

Improved training Adults were better at learning Control adjectives than Tough adjectives. How robust is this difference? Can it be improved with more robust training? Michael Clauss and Jeremy Hartman Syntactic cues alone in Adjective learning 13 November 2015 – BUCLD 40 25 / 34